The push to push drugs on the American people is heavily dependent on the ability to produce favorable research that backs any and all claims that marketing departments wish to make about the drug in order for it to stand out in the competitive field of retail drug sales. Thanks to the admissions of some of the most influential people in this industry, we are now discovering that much of the research being presented in support of many new drugs, vaccines and procedures is fake, and even leading medical journals are agreeing that big pharma manipulates medical research at the expense of public health.Consider the following statements and admissions by very important people who are close enough to the inner workings of the industry to know for sure just how bad the public is being deceived.

In 2015, the editor of one of the world’s most respected medical journals, The Lancet, went public with his admission that research fraud was rampant in the field of medical clinical research:

The following clip is from the documentary ‘One More Girl,’ about the startlingly damaging effects of the Gardasil vaccine. In the clip, former Pfizer Vice President, Dr. Peter Rost candidly discusses the truth about the influence of money in the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Rost wrote the book, The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitmanto contribute to the growing body of evidence that blows the whistle on corporate fraud within the medical establishment.

Dependence on so-called clinical research to support the claims made by pharmaceutical marketing departments is proving to be dangerously misled. Can the public trust the medical establishment to bring effective and safe medicines to market? Increasingly, the evidence is suggesting that it is not.

Should you put your trust in medical research?

A review of more than 2,000 articles retracted by major biomedical journals revealed that more than two-thirds were retracted because of some type of fraud.

(Dag Sundberg, Getty Images)

Cory Franklin

Medical studies are on track to become the “reality television” of science.

A friend of mine, a physician with 30 years of experience in medical research who has published in the world’s top medical journals, recently said to me, “I don’t believe most of the studies published in the medical literature anymore.” His candid skepticism was because he feels medical researchers are losing the trust of the public.

Trust is an essential ingredient of medical research. The accelerating erosion of trust in the biomedical literature that my friend noted is the result of several factors: fraud, conflicts of interest, and inadequate scientific and journalistic peer review. These malign influences have corrupted scientific literature for generations, but their current manifestations are particularly acute in medical research.

Last month, fraud came to the fore when the prestigious journal Science retracted a prominent paper on gay marriage after the lead author lied about certain features of the study. This high-profile retraction was only the latest evidence that fraud has become depressingly common in the biomedical literature. A review of more than 2,000 articles retracted by major journals revealed that more than two-thirds were retracted because of some type of fraud. Moreover, the percentage of articles retracted because of fraud is roughly 10 times higher than it was in 1975.

While some of this may be because of greater scrutiny, an increase of that magnitude should not be ignored because the consequences of fraud in the medical literature can be devastating. Consider two examples: The current movement against vaccination for children stemmed — in large part — from a well-publicized but fraudulent 1998 paper in The Lancet. In another case, as many as 40,000 women were treated for breast cancer with bone marrow transplants in the 1990s at a cost of billions of dollars. This treatment was based on studies revealed to be fraudulent. Bone marrow transplant, effective for certain blood disorders, turned out to be not only relatively ineffective for breast cancer, but often dangerous.

GM Chicken Approved “For Medicinal Purposes”! Are Humans Next?

The floodgates are open for more genetically modified animals—possibly even humans.

Last week saw the approval of another genetically modified animal— this time a chicken genetically altered to produce a drug in its eggs. The drug is designed to replace a faulty enzyme in people with a rare genetic condition that prevents the body from breaking down fatty molecules in cells.

The genetically engineered (GE) chicken is not approved for human consumption, but it is the third so-called “farmaceutical” approved in the US market. Preceding the chicken was a GE goat that produces antithrombin, an anticoagulant, in its milk. Last year the FDA also approved a drug for treating hereditary angioedema that is produced by transgenic (GE) rabbits.

The reason why it has taken so long to realise that something is not right and why so many still don’t see that anything is going on can be explained like this:

On the whole, people: healthcare workers or patients or the public at large, can regard many circumstances in medicine as isolated cause and effect relationships. In other words, people generally fail to make the connections between the different cause and effect relationships.

The Connections linking medical deaths and corruption

It is necessary to make the connections so that we can step back and see the ‘big picture’ of what’s really going on and why certain things occur: If not, then indeed, this can be likened to the analogy of looking at separated pieces of jigsaw puzzle and not having the realisation that they are somehow all connected and therefore not carrying out the task of joining up the pieces to see how it works overall.

-Such has happened in the circumstances surrounding deaths from medical mistakes. This is why the corruption still continues and how the villains are allowed to get away with it. The big picture and the corruption comprise the connections between: The World Health Organisation, approval bodies such as the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, academia, research institutions, media, the legal profession, healthcare staff and patients. -All these can be tied in with ‘favours for favours…’

Nothing stays the same. If everyone was concerned enough to get a deep enough level of realisation of what’s really going on in medicine by connecting up the circumstances or pieces of information to find that they are interrelated (the big picture), then consequently, there would be a mass transformation of the healthcare system. This would eventually be brought about by the reactions that would follow from realising the corruption.

-This mass transformation is my vision: To see a major turnaround of the healthcare system, where treatment will be based on a genuine want to cure people. Where people are put before profits, instead of the reverse; the way it is at the moment.

It is also the visions of other activists and dissident Doctors, growing in numbers by the day. I would say that one of the biggest reasons why more and more people are realising that they are caught up in a scandal in medicine is through the availability of the internet and its access to information that would otherwise be very difficult to get. I also find that, in some of my discussions with people, I can see that their intuition has been already telling them that something is not right in the world of medicine…

I predict that, in time, whether it will take a few years or many decades I don’t really know, but we will have a revolution on our hands. The healthcare system will change. I have no doubt that it will be a radical change.

Western world medicine should be truly outstanding considering the money spent, but it is not, as exemplified in the above must see video featuring an impassioned talk by Doctor Joe Mercola with jaw-dropping facts and figures:

Are deaths from medical mistakes THE biggest cause of death and suffering?

Every time deaths from medical mistakes (or deaths from medicine) are re-estimated, taking other factors into consideration the figure increases. Will we ever get a true figure?

Over the last few decades, the more technology that has been introduced into orthodox medicine be it, drugs, state-of-the-art equipment, apparatus, technical expertise…the more unnecessary procedures there are. I’m not for one minute saying that all technology is bad, but a lot of it can do a great deal of harm.

First genetically modified humans could exist within two years

Humans who have had their DNA genetically modified could exist within two years after a private biotech company announced plans to start the first trials into a ground-breaking new technique.

Editas Medicine, which is based in the US, said it plans to become the first lab in the world to ‘genetically edit’ the DNA of patients suffering from a genetic condition – in this case the blinding disorder ‘leber congenital amaurosis’.

The disorder prevents normal function of the retina; the light-sensitive layer of cells at the back of the eye. It appears at birth or in the first months of life and eventually sufferers can go completely blind.

“Hereditary eye disease in an obvious place to start given that there is already precedent in classical gene therapy”

Professor Darren Griffin, University of Kent

The rare inherited disease is caused by defects in a gene which instructs the creation of a protein that is essential to vision.

But scientists at Editas Medicine in the US believe they can fix the mutated DNA using the ground-breaking gene-editing technology Crispr.

Katrine Bosley, the chief executive of Editas Medicine, told a conference in the US that the company hopes to start trialling the technology on blind patients in 2017.

It would be the first time the technology has been used on humans. Gene editing is currently banned in the US, so the company would need special permission from health regulators.

“It feels fast, but we are going at the pace science allows,” Bosley told the EmTech conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Following on the heels of Angelina Jolie’s widely celebrated decision to remove her breasts ‘preventively,’ few truly understand how important preventing environmental chemical exposures and incorporating cancer-preventing foods into their diet really is in reducing the risk of gene-mediated breast cancer.

There is so much fear and misinformation surrounding the so-called ‘Breast Cancer Associated’ genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that it should help to dispel some prevailing myths by looking at the crucial role that epigenetic factors play in their expression. Literally ‘above’ (epi) or ‘beyond’ the control of the genes, these factors include environmental chemical exposures, nutrition and stress, which profoundly affect cancer risk within us all, regardless of what variant (‘mutated’ or ‘wild’)* that we happen to carry within our genomes.

In 2012, a very important study was published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry that looked at the role a natural compound called resveratrol may play in preventing the inactivation of the BRCA-1 gene. BRCA-1 is known as a “caretaker” gene because it is responsible for healing up double-strand breaks within our DNA. When the BRCA-1 gene is rendered dysfunctional or becomes inactivated, either through a congenital/germline inheritance of DNA defects (‘mutation’) or through chemical exposures, the result is the same: harm to the DNA repair mechanisms within the affected cells (particularly breast and ovary; possibly testicular), hence increasing the risk of cancer.

Ironically, while the prevalence of a “bad” inherited BRCA1 variation is actually quite low relative to the general population (A 2003 study found only 6.6% of breast cancer patients even have either a BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation[1]), everyone’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are susceptible to damage from environmental chemical exposures, most particularly xenobiotic (non-natural) chemicals and radiation. This means that instead of looking to a set of “bad” genes as the primary cause of cancer, we should be looking to avoid exposing both our “bad” and “good” genes alike to preventable chemical exposures, as well as avoiding nutrient deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, which also play a vital role in enabling us to express or silence cancer-associated genes. [For more on why genes don’t “cause” disease see: The Great DNA Data Deficit.]

Pomegranates

Beets

Extract of red beetroot has been shown to help suppress multi-organ tumors in lab tests, and experts are considering using them in combination with traditional anticancer drugs to reduce their toxic side effects.

Radishes

High in antioxidants, these have been shown to help reduce the spread of breast cancer cells. Additionally, a lab study with Japanese radish sprouts significantly lowered the incidence of mammary tumors.

Research: Ginger Selectively Kills Breast Cancer Cells

New research published in the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology found that “ginger may be a promising candidate for the treatment of breast carcinomas.”[i] This is a timely finding, insofar as breast cancer awareness month is only days away, and one of the primary fund-raising justifications is the false concept that a low-cost, safe and effective breast cancer treatment is not yet available. Could ginger provide the type of cure that conventional, FDA-approved treatments have yet to accomplish?

The new study was performed by researchers at the Biological Sciences Department, Faculty of Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, who discovered that a crude extract derived from the medicinal plant ginger (Zingiber officinale) inhibited the proliferation of breast cancer cells, without significantly affecting the viability of non-tumor breast cells — a highly promising property known as selective cytotoxicity, not found in conventional treatments.

Despite significant advances toward targeted therapy and screening techniques, breast cancer continues to be a chronic medical problem worldwide, being the most common type of cancer in women and the leading cause of death [1]. Typically, the treatment of breast cancer involves hormonal therapy with tamoxifen or other selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulators [2–4]. However, almost all patients with metastatic disease and approximately 40% of patients that receive tamoxifen experience relapse that ends by death [5]. In addition, the clinical utility of ER antagonists is often limited by side effects [2, 3, 6] and is largely ineffective against ER-negative breast cancer [2, 3]. Furthermore, despite the fact that many tumors initially respond to chemotherapy, breast cancer cells can subsequently survive and gain resistance to the treatment [7]. Thus, identification of novel agents that are relatively safe but can suppress growth of both ER-positive and ER-negative human breast cancers is highly desirable.

They described their interest in investigating crude extracts of ginger in the following manner:

Despite knowledge about the potent anticancer activity of the ginger, the molecular mechanisms underlying this activity are not currently well known in breast cancer. Based on the previously mentioned reported scientific data and considering the fact that in some cases herbal extracts are showing more potency than the purified components [21, 22], the present study was undertaken to investigate the impacts of crude extracts of ginger on growth of breast cancer cell lines.

They discovered that ginger was capable of positively modulating a surprisingly wide range of molecular mechanisms simultaneously, such as:

Eating Flaxseed May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality By Up To 70%

Mainstream medicine continues to push women to get yearly mammograms as a way to defend themselves against the epidemic of deadly breast cancer. However, mammograms do nothing to prevent the disease or improve survival rates. But the amazing little flaxseed does.

Scores of studies reveal the anticancer effects of flaxseed. Researchers from the University of Toronto recently reviewed the literature to answer questions about the compounds found in flaxseed and how effective they are in reducing breast cancer risk and tumor growth, and whether flaxseeds interact beneficially with breast cancer drugs.

They reviewed in vitro, animal, observational, and clinical studies on flaxseed and flaxseed oil, as well as lignans found in flaxseed.

Lignans are a class of phytoestrogens or plant estrogens that also act as antioxidants. Other foods also contain lignans including sesame, sunflower and pumpkin seeds, grains (rye, barley, wheat and oats), broccoli and beans. But flaxseed has hundreds of times the amount of lignans as any of the others.

The University of Toronto review documents the amazing power of flaxseed to prevent and slow the growth of breast cancer. Here’s what the studies tell us:

The majority of animal studies show a diet of 2.5%-10% flaxseed or the equivalent amount of lignan or flaxseed oil reduces tumor growth.

Diets consisting of 10% flaxseed and the equivalent amount of lignans do not interfere with but rather increase the effectiveness of tamoxifen. A diet of 4% flaxseed oil increases trastuzumab/Herceptin effectiveness.

Taking 50 mg of lignans for one year reduces breast cancer risk in premenopausal women.

Flaxseeds protect women from breast cancer in a variety of ways. Here are just a few:

Flaxseeds decrease tumor cell proliferation. When eaten, lignans in flaxseeds are broken down by bacteria in the gut into 2 estrogen-like compounds that circulate through the liver. These compounds have been proven in animal studies to help prevent breast cancer by preventing tumor growth.

Lignans lower estrogen production. Lignans block aromatase, the enzyme involved in the production of estrogen. Blocking the enzyme lowers estrogen production. High estrogen levels have been linked to the growth of breast cancer.

Whereas conventional models of cancer assumed that the majority of the cancer cells within a tumor possess self-renewal capacity to differing degrees, the CSC model proposes that, “[T]he initiation, maintenance, and growth of a tumor is driven by a minor population of cancer cells termed cancer stem cells (CSCs),” and that “These CSCs undergo continuous self-renewal and differentiate to heterogeneous cancer cells, yielding new tumors recapitulating the parental tumors, while the majority of cancer cells lack self-renewal capacity.”

In other words, the CSCs are at the apex of a hierarchy of cells within the tumor, and are the “mother” of the various daughter cells that make it up, most of which are intrinsically benign. Conventional treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, based on a rodent model with a 2-year experimental window to evaluate treatment efficacy and safety, was incapable of comprehending the CSC-mediated cause of post-treatment tumor recurrence, which in humans can take decades after initial treatment to manifest. Although it was possible to debulk a tumor with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, CSC populations were often missed or even enriched as a result. When the tumor mass regrew it often became more invasive and treatment-resistant, resulting in the rapid demise and death of the patient — deaths which are often written off inaccurately or disingenuously as non-treatment related.

Given that conventional treatment can drive an intrinsically benign tumor (i.e., so-called indolent tumors) into greater invasiveness through increasing the number of intrinsically resilient cancer stem cells at the very same moment that it kills the less or non-harmful daughter cells, alternative treatment approaches are needed now more than ever.

Research: Curcumin Is A Triple Negative Breast Cancer Killer

A new study from Zheijian Provincial People’s Hospital in Zheijiang, China indicates that a compound in turmeric known as curcumin, which gives the spice its characteristic saffron-like color, is capable of inducing programmed cell death (apoptosis) within triple negative breast cancer cells.1

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), so named because the cells do not have the characteristic receptors for estrogen, progesterone and Her2/neu, is considered the most treatment resistant, primarily because these ‘missing receptors’ are required for many of the most popular conventional treatments to work, e.g. Tamoxifen targets estrogen receptors. For this reason, TNBC is considered the most aggressive, the most likely to be treated with less-targeted (and therefore more toxic) forms of chemotherapy, and the soonest to return when treatment fails.

Approximately 15-25% of all breast cancer cases are triple negative. Unfortunately, however, the most visible non-profit foundation dedicated to bringing awareness to the condition, the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, is focused almost exclusively on raising awareness and money for a future pharmaceutical “cure” – much in the same way as its partner, Susan G. Komen, and the larger breast cancer awareness organization, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, act as if removing and addressing the obvious causes of cancer, e.g. carcinogenic chemical and radiation exposures, were not the first priority. For those suffering through or recovering from treatment right now, or trying to decide what to do with a new diagnosis, this latest Chinese study is promising.

(NaturalNews) In a refreshing change of pace, an established doctor has shed light on the fact that many mainstream medical approaches designed to improve health aren’t what they’re cracked up to be. In fact, they’re downright ineffective.

While this hardly comes as a surprise when you consider the plethora of side effects that come with pharmaceuticals, and that they alter the minds of those who take them, what is surprising is that a medical professional has boldly dared to come forward to publicly expose a medical scam.

Dr. Dwight Lundell, a heart surgeon and retired Chief of Staff and Chief of Surgery at Banner Heart Hospital in Mesa, Arizona, has made no qualms about pharmaceuticals’ ineffectiveness and the need to let go of commonly held medical beliefs. In particular, he’s put statins in the spotlight, saying that the cholesterol-lowering drugs wreak havoc on health.(1)

His comment deserves reading:
As a heart surgeon with 25 years experience… today is my day to right the wrong with medical and scientific fact.

I trained for many years with other prominent physicians labeled “opinion makers.” Bombarded with scientific literature, continually attending education seminars, we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol. The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice. It Is Not Working!

These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible.(1)

His thought-provoking statements reinforce what many have believed all along: The conventional medical system is not working. Yet ties to deep pockets and behind-the-scenes ulterior business motives – which are common in the mainstream medical world – keep the industry going. The business of sickness is a profitable one.

For example, statin drugs recently came under even more scrutiny than normal after scientists at Tulane University in New Orleans produced more evidence that they are far from healthy. It was determined that they accelerate the aging process, render many of the body’s cells unable to carry out essential functions and can lead to liver dysfunction, memory loss, cataracts and diabetes.(2)

Lying for profit: Telling healthy people they are anything but

Heart health and the pharmaceutical inadequacies surrounding it aren’t the only medical issues coming under fire. When it comes to cancer, chemotherapy-for-profit scams abound. Sadly, there are many bad apples in the medical bunch who think it’s acceptable to tell healthy people that they have cancer when they don’t, even going so far as to administer treatments.

One such doctor is Michigan oncologist Dr. Farid Fata, who pleaded guilty to 16 counts of healthcare fraud and misdiagnosing patients. He repeatedly misinformed patients that they needed chemotherapy when they did not. Some family members of his patients even noted a sense of desperation; one son recalls the time his father was met by Dr. Fata’s staff curbside, at which point they proceeded to give his deteriorating father treatments as he sat in his car in a parking garage.(3)

Not so pretty in pink: Cancer scams also a disgrace

The cancer scams have long-been a disgrace to society, with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation at the forefront of such deceit and wrongdoing. As reported by alternative media sites, their partnerships with mammogram manufacturers and pharma companies mean – guess what – it’s not really your health, but the financial partnerships they’ve forged, that truly matter. All of that, tied up in a neat little pink bow and perhaps a matching pink shirt to match, to make you feel good about donating to a cause.(4)

Then there’s the whole debacle with mammograms. While women flock to them in droves based on the ingrained (brainwashed?) belief that they’re life-saving devices, the reality is that many times the method fails to properly differentiate between invasive and non-invasive cancers. As such, many women undergo energy-zapping, drawn-out procedures that forever alter their health, or even lead to their death.(5)

So, kudos to Dr. Dwight Lundell for speaking up.

Everyone deserves good health, not false promises and scams that create the opposite effect.
Sources for this article include:

About NaturalNews

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan corporation. It is not recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit in the United States, but it operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books other than reimbursement for items purchased in order to conduct product reviews.

The vast majority of our content is freely given away at no charge. We offer thousands of articles and dozens of downloadable reports and guides (like the Honest Food Guide) that are designed to educate and empower individuals, families and communities so that they may experience improved health, awareness and life fulfillment.

What we think we know about the BRCA (Breast Cancer Susceptibility Associated) genes causing cancer is patently false, according to a new meta-analysis on the extant literature on the subject of these gene variations on breast cancer survival prognosis.

A groundbreaking new meta-analysis published in PLoS titled,”Worse Breast Cancer Prognosis of BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: What’s the Evidence? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis“, calls into question the value of using BRCA1/2 gene status to determine breast cancer survival prognosis, as is common practice today. This implications of this research may have wide-ranging effects as the present climate, following Angelina Jolie’s high profile decision to have prophylactic breast, ovary and fallopian tube removed due to her perceived “genetic inheritance,” is to equate BRCA status with bona fide and mathematically calculable disease risk certainty.

Jolie’s decision to subject herself to multiple prophylactic organ removal was based on the premise that her BRCA mutations would result in an 87 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and up to 54 percent chance of ovarian cancer, as prognosticated by her doctors. The notion that BRCA genes have full or near full penetrance (the ability of a mutation to cause clinically identifiable disease) has profound implications for the health of millions of women who rely on these predictions to make life and death medical decisions.

Because of a wide range of conflicting conclusions on the subject of BRCA’s role in determining cancer risk and prognosis, researchers in the new study attempted a systematic and quantitative synthesis of evidence using the following method:

“Eligible publications were observational studies assessing the survival of breast cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation compared to non-carriers or the general breast cancer population. We performed meta-analyses and best-evidence syntheses for survival outcomes taking into account study quality assessed by selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding.”

They summarized their findings:

“Our review shows that, in contrast to currently held beliefs of many oncologists and despite 66 published studies, it is not yet possible to draw evidence-based conclusions about the association between BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriership and breast cancer prognosis. We only found sufficient evidence for a 10% worse unadjusted recurrence-free survival for BRCA1 mutation carriers. For all the other outcomes the evidence was judged to be indecisive.”

In their concluding remarks, the researchers state, “In contrast to currently held beliefs of some oncologists, current evidence does not support worse breast cancer survival of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the adjuvant setting; differences if any are likely to be small. More well-designed studies are awaited.”

(NaturalNews) Remember the Ebola outbreak of 2014 when nurses infected with Ebola were proclaimed “cured” through the intervention of pharmaceutical medicine? Like everything else the MSM broadcast about Ebola, we now know it was all a sinister fabrication.

Texas nurse Nina Pham was widely celebrated as a hero by the mainstream media for her role in treating an infected Ebola patient that started an outbreak in a Dallas hospital. What the media didn’t tell you is that Nina Pham was nearly killed by the Ebola “treatment” medicines administered by the hospital. “Nina Pham, the first known case of an individual contracting Ebola within the U.S., is now suing the parent corporation of her former employer, which she says violated her personal privacy and left her chronically ill by exploiting and neglecting her during the outbreak,” Natural News reported earlier this year.

“The 26-year-old nurse says she now suffers from constant nightmares, body aches and insomnia due to the experimental medications that were forced upon her while in isolation.”

Pharmaceutical interventions, in other words, caused serious organ damage to nurse Pham, and that damage is permanent. Naturally, the CDC-controlled media exploited Pham for P.R. purposes, but once the news had passed, they left her permanently damaged and abandoned by the system.

A second nurse is also in serious health trouble due to toxic Ebola treatments

Now reported in The Independent (UK): “A British nurse who was apparently cured of Ebola earlier this year is now in a critical condition, doctors have said, with experts expressing astonishment at the deterioration of her condition.”

Pauline Cafferkey was admitted to the specialist treatment isolation unit at Royal Free Hospital in London on 9 October. She had been treated for Ebola at the same hospital earlier this year, and was discharged in good health in January.

None of us here at Natural News are surprised, of course. We’ve long known that everything the medical establishment says about Ebola is a deliberate lie, and that includes pharmaceutical Ebola “treatment” promises.

“The exact nature of Ms Cafferkey’s illness is not known, but experts have expressed shock at the severity of her condition,” reports The Independent.

Here’s what’s really going on: In exactly the same way that AIDS drugs destroy the human immune system and cause symptoms of AIDS, Ebola drugs also destroy the patient’s body and cause critical organ failure.

This fundamental truth about the toxicity of Big Pharma’s deadly drugs will never be admitted in the pharma-controlled press.

As you ponder all this, keep in mind that all holistic treatments for Ebola were viciously and aggressively attacked by governments and the media during the Ebola outbreak. Those who offered colloidal silver treatments or products were threatened by U.S. regulators and mocked by the media… even though colloidal silver is a non-toxic treatment that cannot cause the kind of organ failure we’re witnessing from pharmaceutical interventions.

“The IRS sent us a warning letter saying that by sharing US Department of Defense Threat Reduction Agency declassified research on the impact of our particular Nano Silver 10 PPM on the ability of the Ebola virus to cause disease we had miraculously turned the substance into a drug,” Dr. Laibow told Natural News. “We responded to them in detail (26 pages, if I recall properly) and they sent back another letter backing off a bit but demanding changes in our site.”

Meanwhile, companies that sold high-grade medicinal essential oils such as doTerra were threatened by government regulators with being put out of business if they didn’t police their independent distributors who were sharing the true news that many essential oils can kill Ebola.

The medical system, government and media essentially invoked an all-out WAR on natural medicine while claiming their own pharmaceuticals were the only safe treatments for Ebola. Now we see just what a farce those claims really were. Much like chemotherapy, the “treatment” for Ebola may be just as deadly as Ebola itself.

Meanwhile, all the truly SAFE treatments like colloidal silver have been intentionally disparaged, marginalized and pushed to the fringes of alternative medicine. It’s no coincidence that colloidal silver can’t be patented and is universally available for mere pennies, thereby threatening the more important aspect of Big Pharma’s disease pandemic schemes: PROFITS!

Here at Natural News, our prayers go out to Pauline Cafferkey with the hope that she won’t end up as yet another needless victim of Big Pharma’s toxic treatments and the mainstream media’s outrageous lies that misled medical staff into falsely believing that pharmaceutical treatments for Ebola are safe.

About NaturalNews

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan corporation. It is not recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit in the United States, but it operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books other than reimbursement for items purchased in order to conduct product reviews.

The vast majority of our content is freely given away at no charge. We offer thousands of articles and dozens of downloadable reports and guides (like the Honest Food Guide) that are designed to educate and empower individuals, families and communities so that they may experience improved health, awareness and life fulfillment.

Who is Nina Pham? Meet the Nurse Who Contracted Ebola

This undated photo made available by the Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium, shows the Ebola virus viewed through an electron microscope. Antwerp Institute of Tropical Me / AP

Nina Pham is the nurse who contracted the Ebola virus and is being treated in Dallas, a close family friend has confirmed to NBC News Monday.

Pham is the first patient to contract the disease while on U.S. soil, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which said the transmission resulted from an unknown “breach of protocol” in treating Thomas Eric Duncan when he returned to Texas Presbyterian a second time. On Monday CDC director Tom Frieden clarified that he in no way meant to place blame on the stricken nurse.

“This is a very brave person who put herself at risk to do something good for society, and is now ill,” he said.

Dallas Nurse with Ebola is Clinically-Stable, says CDC4:38

Pham, 26, is a 2010 graduate of the Bachelors of Science in Nursing program at Texas Christian University, according to Lisa Albert, a spokesperson for the school. The four-year program prepares nurses to serve as “liaisons among doctors, patients and other members of the health care team,” according to the school website.

There is not a stand-alone course on infections disease work, but infection prevention strategies are “woven throughout all clinical coursework,” according to Albert. Precautionary methods are introduced at the start of clinical course work, reviewed through the curriculum, and students sign an end-of-semester document attesting to this work.

Pham was certified by the Texas Board of Nursing in 2010, according to state records, but she didn’t receive her certificate in Critical Care Nursing until Aug. 1 — less than two months before Duncan arrived at Texas Health Presbyterian critically ill with Ebola. Duncan died last week.

The lawsuit alleges that while she became the American face of the fight against the disease, the hospital’s lack of training and proper equipment and violations of her privacy made her “a symbol of corporate neglect — a casualty of a hospital system’s failure to prepare for a known and impending medical crisis.”

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Pham released a brief statement: “I was hoping that THR would be more open and honest about everything that happened at the hospital, and the things they didn’t do that led to me getting infected with Ebola. But that didn’t happen and I felt I was left with no choice but to turn to the courts for help. The fact is, I’m facing a number of issues with regard to my health and my career and the lawsuit provides a way to address them. But more importantly, it will help uncover the truth of what happened, and educate all health care providers and administrators about ways to be better prepared for the next public health emergency. I particularly want to express my continued sympathy to the family of Mr. Duncan, as it was my privilege to care for him. I also want to acknowledge my fellow nurses, and the many friends, family and strangers for their ongoing concern and support.”

Pham told The Dallas Morning News that Texas Health Resources was negligent because it failed to develop policies and train its staff for treating Ebola patients. She says Texas Health Resources did not have proper protective gear for those who treated Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person in the United State diagnosed with the disease. He died Oct. 8.

“I wanted to believe that they would have my back and take care of me, but they just haven’t risen to the occasion,” Pham said in the interview.

Nina Pham claims the extent of her Ebola training was a printout of guidelines her supervisor found on the web. “The only thing I knew about Ebola, I learned in nursing school” six years earlier, Pham said.

Nina Pham claims the extent of her Ebola training was a printout of guidelines her supervisor found on the web. “The only thing I knew about Ebola, I learned in nursing school” six years earlier, Pham said.

Patients first

“I was proud of us. We fought in the trenches together, the frontline health care workers. That’s what nursing is about: putting the patient first. We did what we had to do,” Pham said.

She remembers spending hours alone with Duncan cleaning up his bodily fluids, monitoring his vital signs and reassuring him that everything would be OK. Pham said Duncan was in a great deal of pain and frightened but always polite. He told her “he felt very isolated.” She held his hand and told him she would pray for him.

But when Duncan tested positive for Ebola, it sent panic and fear throughout Presbyterian — and the nation. Pham, too, was frightened.

“I was the last person besides Mr. Duncan to find out he was positive,” she said. “You’d think the primary nurse would be the first to know. … I broke down and cried, not because I thought I had it but just because it was a big ‘whoa, this is really happening’ moment.”

Duncan, who contracted the disease in his native Liberia, died Oct. 8. A few days later, Pham tested positive for the disease. She was initially treated at Presbyterian and then the National Institutes of Health in Maryland with a series of experimental drugs and plasma from Dr. Kent Brantly, an Ebola survivor.

She says that Texas Health Resources violated her privacy while she was a patient at Presbyterian by ignoring her request that “no information” be released about her. She said a doctor recorded her on video in her hospital room and released it to the public without her permission.

Pham said she considered not going back to care for Duncan after his diagnosis. Her colleagues said they wouldn’t blame her for not returning to her job where normal 12-hour shifts had stretched to 14 or 15. Even her mother said she didn’t care if Pham lost her job.

Pham said that while she did not volunteer to care for Duncan, she felt that she couldn’t say no.

“I had a duty to take care of him,” she said. “It’s not in my nature to refuse.”

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself.

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

Friends and Sponsors

The Animal Rescue Site

The Hunger Site – Your click helps to feed the hungry

Wheatgrass Kits.com

FAIR USE NOTICE

The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.

Any materials (ie. graphics, articles , commentary) that are original to this blog are copyrighted and signed by it's creator. Said original material may be shared with attribution. Please respect the work that goes into these items and give the creator his/her credit. Just as we share articles , graphics and photos always giving credit to their creators when available. Credit and a link back to the original source is required.

If you have an issue with anything posted here or would prefer we not use it . Please contact me. Any items that are requested to be removed by the copyright owner will be removed immediately. No threats needed or lawsuit required. If there is a problem and you do not wish your work to be showcased then we will happily find an alternative from the many sources readily available from creators who would find it amenable to having their work presented to the subscribers of this feed.